Suicide of a Superstate

The end of the old America is tragic—but it also bears hope of renewal.

By Jack Hunter | October 20, 2011

Anyone who has met Patrick J. Buchanan in person can tell you he is generally upbeat and jovial, yet his books are rather grim: State of Emergency; The Death of the West; Day of Reckoning. In Buchanan’s defense, perhaps pessimism is the only honest outlook on politics. Perhaps it is the only proper way to look at our politics.

In his new book, Buchanan makes the case that it is—that any sober observer must admit America, in the historic sense, is over. Suicide of a Superpower delivers exactly what its title suggests, outlining how the long-dominant philosophies of liberalism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, imperialism, and feminism, along with various other anti-Western and anti-Christian pathologies, have mortally wounded America’s traditional cultural core.

He describes what America used to be:

We shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans. We spoke the same language, learned the same history, celebrated the same heroes, observed the same holy days and holidays, went to the same films, rooted for the same teams, read the same newspapers, watched the same TV shows on the same three channels, danced to the same music, ate the same foods, recited the same prayers at church, the same pledge of allegiance at school, and were taught the same truths about right and wrong, good and evil, God and country.”

And he concludes, “We were a people then. But we are not a people anymore.”

Buchanan describes the ways in which the traditional America is in retreat. Christianity has been diminished, both in its theological and cultural influence and in the number of actual Christians in our society. Catholicism is a weaker force in the United States than at any time in our history. Keynesian economic policy and unfair trade practices have undermined our material wealth. Our globalist mindset and perpetual wars hasten an inevitable imperial downfall. White Americans will soon be a minority in a country that has been predominantly European since its founding.

Buchanan makes his points by breaking down the numbers, sketching momentous political and philosophical trends, and giving a historical context to his overall narrative. He presents the case that what many have considered the greatest nation in the history of the world is now marching hastily toward its end.

And it is a strong case. I have no doubt, and little disagreement with Buchanan, that the old America as most Americans have known it is now being relegated to history. In fact, I know of few other books, with perhaps the exception of some of Andrew Bacevich’s considerations on foreign policy and mass consumerism, that make the broad civilizational case that America cannot withstand current conditions and remain American in any traditional sense.

Perhaps my favorite definition of conservatism is that of Russell Kirk, who said it is the conservative’s task to preserve a particular people, living in a particular place during a particular time.

For Buchanan, and likely for all of us, the days when America was an indomitable superpower with endless resources and a well-defined national cultural core might very well be over.

Yet there is still something called America. There are Americans living in it. There will be other Americans living in it in years to come, particular people living in this particular place at another time. Some of these younger Americans already do not like this place or time in our politics and desperately want to change it. So could some of the unavoidable changes conservatives reasonably fear, strange as it may sound, produce a more conservative future?

I’ve always believed that if America needed saving, conservatism would do it—but I’ve also come to the conclusion that many of our immediate problems are due to the patent ineffectiveness of older generations of conservatives. I most certainly do not include Buchanan in this category; he inspired me at a young age and continues to inspire me today. But I do include most of Buchanan’s enemies within the movement—from the neoconservatives who cursed him so harshly during the 1996 presidential election to the old Republican guard that sabotaged his potentially revolutionary campaign that year and who have always held his populist conservatism in low regard.

When Buchanan was complaining about our illegal immigration problems, these same Republicans were calling him “racist.” Now concern for illegal immigration is a standard Republican talking point. When Buchanan was complaining about unfair trade practices, he was dismissed as an “isolationist,” while now Republicans as mainstream as Mitt Romney seem to want a trade war with China. Buchanan warned that our constant interventionism overseas might produce horrific blowback, even predicting a 9/11-style attack in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire. No one listened. Buchanan tried to explain Where the Right Went Wrong in 2004, but the right insisted on continuing to go wrong.

Deficits and debt exploded under George W. Bush. We saw more government. More executive power. Less constitutional constraint. Less liberty. Too many older conservatives seem to have learned few lessons even at this late date, and as if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren’t complete debacles, too many Republicans today are eager for another war with Iran. This is astounding.

I could go on, but the gist is this: the cultural, political, economic, and spiritual disintegration described in Suicide of a Superpower was brought on as much by vaunted conservatives as by any conscious liberal agenda. Our political and cultural establishment helped usher in this demise, this national suicide.

As a class of voters, Baby Boomers have become accustomed to post-New Deal American-style statism; they now cling to bankrupt government promises—and not unfairly, as these were promises—with all of their political muscle. The average American under 30 has little political or emotional attachment to this system and does not expect to benefit from it later in life.

Young people might not show up in droves at the ballot box, but their activism has always steered the direction of both major parties. Many if not most in the rising new generation on the right are eager for the old America of high taxes, massive debt, unsustainable entitlements, and endless wars to go away as quickly as possible. They are libertarians. They are constitutionalists. They are conservatives. They are activists. They are anxious. Many are angry at what their parents and grandparents have done to this country, an unconservative sentiment, perhaps, but not necessarily an incorrect one. I’m not as young as many of them, but I’m inclined to agree with them.

And it’s because I essentially agree with Buchanan and his concept of traditional conservatism. Buchanan writes in his introduction to Suicide: “In America today, the secession that is taking place is a secession from one another, a secession of the heart.” He’s describing the cultural retrenchment that is divorcing Americans from one another. But there is a contemporaneous political retrenchment that is intellectually exciting: a secession within the American conservative movement of young from old, principled from partisan.

Perhaps I’m being too optimistic. But I do believe the demise of American superpower could bear conservative fruit unforeseen at the moment. Richard Weaver once wrote that revolutions have occurred in history that would have surprised everyone given the circumstances that preceded them.

Based on my observations of the rising conservative generation, I have hope that Weaver’s observation will be borne out again in the decades to come. And if this American superpower insists on suicide, perhaps a new generation of conservatives can trade empire for a little of the old republic.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 16 comments

16 Responses to Suicide of a Superstate

I could not disagree more. America is nowhere near dead. In fact, the occupation movement has revitilized and reinvigorated democracy. Finally democracy is being done the way the Founding Fathers intended. It is a great time to be an American. The people are gathering together and coming up with solutions to the problems. A new way is being crafted, and that will do more than a shared religion or culture to bind Americans together in a way that they have not been since the first Revolution. There is nothing like shared sacrifice and suffering to weld a people together. My Father fought in Vietnam, and his buddies were as close as family, and in some ways closer. That is what this occupation movement is doing, and in the end America will be stronger because of it. Many of the things that Pat Buchanan fears will not come to pass because this movement will put a stop to it. I wish he would go down to a General Assembly to see democracy in action. By the people, for the people. And no, a corporation is not a person.

Death and change are the only two sure things that I know of anyway. America the land and people will remain. I think what Jack and Pat are trying to get accross is that Imperial Socialist Corporate Welfare, etc. America will end. A new system will take its place and it may be better for all in the end. There will be growing pains and mistakes, but isn’t that always the case.

Mr. Hunter, this is a fine appraisal of Buchanan and nicely done essay. The unrelenting opposition that Buchanan has faced from various quarters of the Republican establishment only illustrates how far the GOP has moved from any kind of genuine conservatism. Today’s GOP is just neoconservativism (a euphemism for imperialism) overlaid with a vacuous form of market fundamentalism (which is just a glorified form of soulless materialism). The sense of localism, of linking ethnos with place that is reflected in the citation from Kirk, is totally absent in today’s pseudo-conservative GOP. For this reason, your assessment that principled and angry (and believe me, many of us are very angry) young conservatives and traditionalists will revitalize American conservatism is a nice thought. Sadly, I can’t share your optimism. The principles and anger that you mention are real enough, but where is the organizational locus? What will serve as a unifying center for a re-invigorated American conservatism?

Pat is, as always, right as rain. A non-euro America is effectively going to become an extension of Latin America (with all of it’s associated wretchedness). The poor curs who come here will shortly find a country very much like the one they left. Some seen to regard the dirt under our feet (in the U.S.) as a magical land, and whoever lives upon it will prosper, regardless of who they are, or what culture they carry with them. We are all finding out otherwise. As white people decrease, expect to see any vitality decrease.

@Sean. I cringe as I so often do when I see “conservatives” use the word “democracy” as though it is a good thing. The Founders universally despised democracy and there are quote after quote to that effect. John Adams stated there was never a democracy that survived. Jefferson said democracy was just a method for 51 percent of the people to rip off the other 49 percent. Franklin supposedly told the lady outside Independence Hall, “a republic if you can keep it.” We note he said republic not a democracy. But we leave it to Madison to have the final word. He called democracy the vilest form of government on earth.

With the total disdain of the Founders behind us regarding “democracy” conservatives still refer positively to it and seem unable to use the “R” word. Rush often refers to himself as the “doctor of democracy”. We are told that one of the success stories for both Afghanistan and Iraq, by conservative commentators no less like Rush and Sean, is that they have “democratic” governments even if those “democracies” just happen to be sharia based.

Can we as conservatives once and for all finally agree to quit using the word “democracy” and start using the word “republic”? In a democracy the rights of a minority can be voted away with no recourse as we saw in Iraq. In a republic, unalienable rights can not be voted away regardless of the will of the majority. Which is why the Founders created a republic and not a democracy. When we talk “democracy” we cede too much of the arguement right at the beginning to democrats and liberals. Which is why they are so fond of the term.

The Republic is a fraud, always was a fraud. It lasted hardly any longer than Soviet communism did (Lincoln killed what little of it there was). And suicide of a superpower? Good riddance. One gigantic socialist-fascist state with an oligarchic ruling class that gives lip service to the republic (or democracy or whatever) will be replaced by several small Americas, each finding its own way, and each providing a haven for those who don’t fit in with their “America of birth”. Americans will survive and prosper without empire. We need this rotten ugly mess to end, and power decentralized, even down to the individual. The sooner the better.

What’s interesting is how short a time in historical terms the American Empire will have lasted. 1945-2045 (at best) 100 years, although I expect the worldwide withdrawal now poo-pooed as isolationism will kick into high gear in a decade so 100 years may be on the long side.

A pittance compared to the great empires of ancient times and less than half of the British. How is this happening? The vast majority of the public want lots for nothing: defense, welfare, lawn care, pensions, tuition, housing, health care- all for less than they cost and the savings passed off on the next generation to pay.

It took the British two titanic wars against the Germans to empty the treasury. It’s taken the US a series of skirmishes against rabble to achieve the same end.

Perhaps the secret is whether you pay your politicians, military officers and civil servants as we do or whether they work basically for the honor of serving as in Rome and Britain? Certainly the inability to guard the frontier has a parallel with Rome.

Conservatives are being destroyed by the very party that claims to represent them. What has “free trade” done to if not destroy the small town America where conservatives were born, worked, raised their children, and died? Try to live in a small town in this country now. They are places of desperation and poverty. All the industries have fled our shores for India and Communist Red China. All that is left in our small towns is poverty, ignorance, and bitterness over a government that no longer represents its people nor cares about its constitutional commitments to them.

The states need to rise up and call a constitutional convention. Repeal the 16th amendment! Force the federal government to live off of tariffs once again. Put an end to their redistribution of wealth. It only takes 2/3rds of the states to do this. Because of the way the “service industry” population has clumped together in big cities, Americans could do this and pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th amendment and taking away the federal government’s ability to tax individuals with less than 1/4th of the popular vote. The solution to what ails the US is not that difficult to fix. Let’s roll, Americans!

As someone who is 19, and who will therefore probably live to see a lot more of the “New” America than I would like, I cannot share Mr. Hunter’s (relative) optimism about the future of this country.

The corrosive effects of increasing ethnic diversity on national identity are well-documented. We’ve pretty much passed the point of no return on that count. Even if we stopped all immigration today, non-Hispanic whites would be a minority in this country at about the mid-century point. This is not something to be celebrated, certainly not by whites, who will find that whatever outrages are committed against us in this country today will be multiplied. But even the “New Americans” will have little to celebrate from this new state of affairs. Since there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority, the overwhelming likelihood is that politics will devolve into a mosh pit of competing ethnic interests, the net effect of which will be to make everyone worse off.

There will be even less principled debate (not that there’s much today) on what’s beneficial to the country as a whole in the future. It will ultimately boil down to the more timeless question of “Who…Whom?” The very best we can hope for, in terms of the quality of government, would be something along the lines of Brazil or India, and there’s plenty of reason to expect worse.

Most “young people” are not libertarians, and certainly not constitutionalists. By and large, assuming they are aware of politics at all, they are either mostly concerned with policies to further the interests of their own ethnic group (if they are nonwhite, especially black or Hispanic), or they are naive leftists, or they’re just angry at the system in general and don’t know what they want. Absent massive balkanization, I cannot imagine anything remotely resembling a constitutional Republic, along the lines that Mr. Hunter would prefer, existing anywhere within the current borders of the United States.

Mr. Hunter is, of course, correct that there is still something called “America”, yet what does it mean, really? While it used to denote a primarily Northern European, Anglo-Saxon, Christian nation, it no longer denotes a particular people, or a particular culture, except for the glorified prolefeed that passes for popular culture. Thanks to birthright citizenship, the child of mestizo immigrants, who may or may not even speak English, is considered just as “American” as a direct descendant of the Founders. Indeed, since an “American” identity is now little more than a geographic designation, there is a case to be made that the mestizo immigrants are more “American” because they have ancestors who were on this continent before the founders.

There is every reason to expect a bleak future. With our dominance spent, a world full of people eager to take potshots at us, and the degeneration of our demos into a polyglot collection of mutually ambivalent or hostile races and ethnicities, there is little reason to expect anything other than disaster.

First, the original article here is very inspiring. Very. I have journeyed from studying Adam Smith in college to preferring the Huffington Post to realizing afresh that what’s most urgently needed is intelligent conservatism. Feeling much more at home here, except…

Shocking knowledge has been revealed to me in these very comments! Yes, this great nation is doomed. And the problem is *my children*. They may be just 6 and 7, really cute and smart, but according to comments here, I should not be deceived: they *are* responsible.

I’m a pale person, very pale, who can claim membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution. But I married a non-pale person from another culture and was fruitful and multiplied. Alas – the mestizo threat, here in my own house!!!

I cannot believe this stuff. This danger facing us is not in varied ethnicity and skin color and group affiliation – but focusing on such things is good common ground with liberals! The danger is a lack of uniting ideas and principles, due in part to poor education about them (not for my kids!).

We did have uniting ideas and shared culture and language. Some of the best-educated about them are immigrants of the wrong color, such as the Africans who came to my mother’s public library looking for editions of the Federalist Papers and any available materials for improving their English. They want assimilation – desperately.

It must be disconcerting for them to discover there’s not much to assimilate with. Kindly liberals urge them to stay just as they are, open interesting new restaurants, and clean things. So-called conservatives, apparently cruelly kept from knowledge of their own genealogy, ignore the ways these taxi-driving former professors exemplify values they trumpet so loudly and just want them to go away.

“Hostile races?” Wait – are all white people actually getting on fabulously with each other at the moment, or am I missing something?

Buchanan states: “In America today, the secession that is taking place is a secession from one another, a secession of the heart.” Quite right.

Bill:
Very well said! I am in complete agreement with your broadside. The USA of the future will degenerate along the lines that you’ve stated. It’s inevitable, barring circumstances and events unforseen. In a few years, the U.S. House and Senate will be dominated by a mixed-multitude of ethnic factions holding no loyalty or allegiance to the USA of “dead white men'”. Although it has taken me awhile to reach this conclusion, I now accept the reality that the dire predictions and prophecies from the time of Moses to date, are, in fact, occurring all about the earth and, particularly, in the Western nations. You know, of course, that Oswald Spengler foresaw troubling times ahead. His book, “Decline of the West”.

As for the future of WASP’s in the new USA, — a La Raza mouthpiece, speaking on Los Angeles television, said — “We will take back the stolen lands house-by-house, block-by-block, and city-by-city. The Anglos will be deported and Oklahoma returned to the Indians!”. Later, when Mexican President Vicente Fox mounted a protest march (horseback) along the Rio Grande (to protest U.S. immigration policy), Chief of the Cherokee Nation, Joe Bird, joined Fox’s protest to show “solidarity” with the bronze brothers! Looks like Bird was anticipating a “new sheriff” coming to town.

I like Jack Hunter’s style and manner of writing the review of Buchanan;s book although I’m not as optimistic about a future resurrection of the moribund Republic. I supported Pat Buchanan’s bid for the White House in 1996.

Let’s face it, different peoples create different civilization. If we try to mash all of our planets peoples together into some kind of one-world-hodgepodge, that will be a disaster.
It’s great that there are many distinct peoples on this planet, let’s keep it that way!